Some people feel that Wikipedia isn’t trustworthy because it’s a platform on which you can go in and change information.

That’s true, but only to a degree.


The reality is that if you change information on Wikipedia and you don’t have any kind of history or you’re new to the game, understand that majority of these pages have gatekeepers.

These are people who are dedicated to the page and the content that’s on the page so if you make any changes they’ll be alerted of it and revert back the changes and flag you if you didn’t follow any one of the guidelines.

The real issue with Wikipedia is that it’s a reference index.

You can post information there so long as you’re referring back to content that’s been published elsewhere, and that content has some sort of reputability.

Today we live in an era of iterative journalism.

What that means is that you can publish content, post stuff, report of rumors and speculation and things may or may not be true (most likely they’re not true), but you’ll say stuff and have crazy headlines all because it’s going to drive traffic.

From an ethical standpoint, yes it’s wrong. But, from a legal standpoint, you’re just commenting on rumors and speculating.

When they’re told what they’re sharing is incorrect and they’re given the right information, they’ll simply put an update at the end of the article. But, they wont change the headline nor the lead and original content, all of which is still misleading or incorrect.

That information is still referenced for the Wikipedia pages.

When you have folks like BuzzFeed and UpWorthy, and other yellow journalism folks like Gawker, and even the way that Facebook is setup today (maybe it won’t be that way in the future, but it is right now), it’s all about infotainment.

That content that’s being shared, it’s being shared like that, and they don’t think about the consequences that come as a result of it.

We need to really got back to our spiritual tradition of verifying and investigating whether what’s being shared with us is actually true.

The thing with Wikipedia is that as long as the content is referenced, they can share it. But, the question that comes into play, is what’s being referenced, is it legit? Is it true?

I feel as though the Muslim community is guilty of this as well. They’ll share content and share headlines that speculate for the purposes of eyeballs and come to conclusions through rumors which is not healthy.

It’s definitely not good for our community as a whole when seeking to work toward a better future.

I highly recommend all of you to read “Trust me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator” by Ryan Holiday.

The author is the director of marketing for American Apparel and also a fantastic writer who’s strong in his ability to do research.

He was someone who found himself using the very tactics used to manipulate the media. Among the ways that they would do so is that they’d publish a fabricated news story by getting one of the yellow journalists to write it through the sharing of an “anonymous tip.”

Once published, they’d leverage that to get real news coverage. You end up having news coverage being created through fake news. Suddenly you have all this information being propagated throughout.

It’s all based off of falsehood and lies.

It crosses the line of what’s ethical and right. The reality is that most of us are unaware of news media, where it came from, where it is now, and where it’s going.

Because of this ignorance a lot of us fall into many of its traps, sharing the vary false information. Some might even engage in the very tactics which are essentially decisive to families, people, and communities as a whole.

I highly recommend you check out that book, “Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator” by Ryan Holiday.

Don’t look to Wikipedia as an actual source of information. It’s easy to access, yes.

But, look at what’s being referred to. And, then based on that make a judgement call as to whether or not it’s a reputable source.

About Akhi Soufyan

If you see goodness from me, then that goodness is from The Creator. You should be thankful to The Creator for all of that. Cause I'm not the architect of that. I'm only the...the recipient. If you see weakness or shortcoming in me it's from my own weakness or shortcoming. And I ask The Creator and the people to forgive me for that. _______________________________ Website eigenaar voor een betere wereld en doel, niet gericht op verdiensten van geld maar goede daden. In de naam van Allah, de Barmhartige. Als je goedheid van mij ziet, dan is dat de goedheid van de Schepper (God). Wees De Schepper dankbaar voor dat. Want ik ben daar niet de architect van, ik ben alleen de ontvanger.

Posted on January 5, 2015, in ARTICLES, VIDEOS and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: